Weaver95: so you are saying that the curfew was lifted AND there was still this massive level of threat to the public? again this does not make sense.

The curfew was lifted because they knew they weren't actively out there, that doesn't mean there weren't other bombs elsewhere. What were they gonna say: 'All of America, curfew!'

There are conspiracy theorists out there who think this was a false flag in order to establish martial-law-lite and see how citizens reacted so that one day they can put the entire country on lockdown once we're used to it.

ManateeGag:Why does it seem that people are rooting for the criminal that blew up and 8-year-old?

Maybe you don't get that people want the rule of law adhered to. It's not about protecting this guy, it's about protecting potential innocent people from mouth-breathing lynch mobs who like to knee-jerk into a guilty verdict.

But go ahead and miss that point completely and keep thinking people like to see 8 year olds blown up.

You have the right to remain silent, so shut the fark up, okay? You have the right to an attorney. If you can't afford an attorney, we'll provide you with the dumbest farking lawyer on earth. If you get Johnny Cochrane, I'll kill ya!

Tatsuma:.... no he doesn't, the government gave him those lawyers and they've declared that that was it. Not sure why, but they've done so in the past.

I've fired a court appointed attorney and was given a more competent public defender. The first attorney wanted me to plead guilty to everything, and I said "no, go make a plea bargain". He said he wouldn't so I said I was going to go to the DA and crack my own deal. He said I couldn't do that, and I asked him, "do you want to watch me walk down to the DA's office and do it?"

They assigned me a new lawyer, a good lawyer, who happened to be Jewish, if it matters.

So the "public safety exception" involved asking one question about an immediate danger.

What the Obama administration wants is multiple days of interrogation, despite the fact that the Boston officials had long since publicly declared the immediate danger to be over when they told everyone they were now free to go about their business.

Make no mistake, the decision to strip away Constitutional rights had nothing whatsoever to do with anything happening in Boston. An FBI memo covering this change of policy leaked to the press over a year ago.

See the difference? The public safety exception was extremely limited and had to do with an immediate threat. The decision from the Obama administration to strip away yet more Constitutional rights had nothing to do with an immediate threat. That was simply the excuse they used.

El_Perro:So, he knew enough about his rights to demand a lawyer, but didn't know that he could remain silent (see the other stories floating around that he stopped talking once he was given his Miranda warnings)? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Triumph:But all the kid has to do is claim it's true. Then the onus is on the FBI to turn over every second of footage from the interrogations and prove otherwise. This kid's going to have defense attorneys lining up pro bono just to be the guy who got the Boston bomber case dismissed.

Not sure if anyone has LOL'd at you yet, but that's not gonna happen. All this means is that, at best, anything he may have said may not be used against him. Presumably, they have enough to put him to death or put him away for life.

Theaetetus:gblive: Yogimus: I am OK with the questioning. Those that questioned him must not be a part of the criminal trial in any way. That information must never be used against him.

I agree with this.

That prevents the harm from affecting the trial, yes... But what keeps investigators from doing this again and again in the future?

Consider if they tortured him... would a reasonable response be merely "any information they obtain can't be used at trial"? Wouldn't this give the government carte blanche to torture political prisoners, with the torture, rather than conviction, being the goal?

Or even without the torture - could the government arrest someone and question them for days, weeks, etc. about everyone they know, every financial transaction they've made, every conversation they had, etc... provided they don't use that information at trial?

In other words, is the penalty of "you can't use this information at trial" really a sufficient safeguard for the civil rights of citizens?

This isn't even a true representation of what is going on.

In the court case that established the "public safety exception" they did indeed use the information gained before the suspect was read his rights to convict him.

It seems to me he needs to be treated as any treasonous spy or saboteur with potential knowledge of future attacks on the people of the United States. There aught to be some Cold War or World War 2 precedent that would be helpful.

If we insist on treating him like an ordinary criminal, I imagine that there's plenty of evidence outside the interrogation in question that would put him on the (federal) gallows.

Early this morning, Russian forces in the region of Dagestan, in what looks to be part of a post-Boston crackdown on their own homegrown militants. At least five have been killed around the country for having suspected ties to Islamic militant groups.

.... no he doesn't, the government gave him those lawyers and they've declared that that was it. Not sure why, but they've done so in the past.

Weaver95: i'm gonna disagree with you there - the cops had little reason to believe there was additional devices that might cause a threat. the city was in lock down after all, and everyone was at home. damage (if any) would have been minimal. the cops had time to play it straight and didn't. what that means to the prosecution, I don't know...probably nothing, since I think we're gonna throw our rulebook out on this one.

That is downright wrong, by the time he was in the hospital, the curfew had already been lifted, and we don't know where they could have planted or dropped bombs. They could have mailed some for all they knew.

An accused has the right to instruct the counsel of their choice. If you're right, it is the first I've heard of it and would mean that a central tenet in the criminal justice has been revoked.

Weaver95: so you are saying that the curfew was lifted AND there was still this massive level of threat to the public? again this does not make sense.

The curfew was lifted because they knew they weren't actively out there, that doesn't mean there weren't other bombs elsewhere. What were they gonna say: 'All of America, curfew!'

There are conspiracy theorists out there who think this was a false flag in order to establish martial-law-lite and see how citizens reacted so that one day they can put the entire country on lockdown once we're used to it.

/derpx2

I think that conspiracy theory is rubbish, but it is interesting to see how many media flapping heads were eager to make Obama's political enemies into enemies of the state. Wolf Blitzer and Chris Matthews blamed tea party anti-tax activists right out of the gate. If the Reichstag ever needs to be burned, those two f*ckers (and others) would happily light the match.

I'm not equating Obama with Hitler, that's absurd- but I can see how Hitler was able to staff up his power base.

"If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease ... If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning."

Or else what?

No, your case is not dismissed. The only consequence is that any incriminating statements you make cannot be used against you.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner. AFAIK, the SCOTUS hasn't thrown out the Miranda decision... yet. They might be chipping away at the edges of it, but they haven't overturned it yet (and the "public safety" exception is one of the biggest whacks at the Miranda decision, one the Court should have attached a "reasonable time limit" clause to. Then again, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito aren't the biggest fans of the 5th Amendment).

"If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease ... If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning."

Or else what?

No, your case is not dismissed. The only consequence is that any incriminating statements you make cannot be used against you.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner. AFAIK, the SCOTUS hasn't thrown out the Miranda decision... yet. They might be chipping away at the edges of it, but they haven't overturned it yet (and the "public safety" exception is one of the biggest whacks at the Miranda decision, one the Court should have attached a "reasonable time limit" clause to. Then again, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito aren't the biggest fans of the 5th Amendment).

It's funny how we've been saying this over and over since Tsarnaev was caught and the DoJ said they weren't Mirandizing him immediately--and yet we're still having to say this.

It is APPALLING how much TV and movie myth has overthrown the public perception of the legal system. Next we'll be hearing that Tsarnaev has to be released because he didn't get the one phone call he was entitled to, or some other "technicality" Hollywood has used over the decades to get criminals onto the street so Charles Bronson could righteously gun them down.

401kman:There was no public safety afforded by denying him his rights.

That is because his rights were NOT violated.

Not getting a Miranda WARNING is not the same as denying him his rights.Saying it is a violation of his rights is the line from the terrorist apologists.

From wiki: if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial.

Tatsuma:The Guardian and Glenn Greenwald. Urgh that's like the apotheosis of far-Left douchebaggery.

If you ask questions to someone before giving them their miranda rights and without having them charged, they do not need to be provided a lawyer. Nothing they said will be used in court, so they don't need a lawyer in the first place.

No. If you open your mouth and say something before you are charged, it CAN be used against you in court.

401kman:You watch way too many movies. They alreay had all of the explosives in possession and the FBI damn well knew there were no other plots. Jack Bauer is fiction you idiot

Aren't you just a sweetie pie.

So, there's no chance they had other associates who had their own explosives and plans? I read a report that said they found a woman's DNA on one of the bombs. It's entirely possible that there are more than just these 2 guys behind this.

Asking if there are any other bombs is perfectly fine. Anything beyond that is straight up illegal in the absence the requested attorney. Like somebody said, the Bill of Rights is not a list of suggestions.

tenpoundsofcheese:401kman: There was no public safety afforded by denying him his rights.

That is because his rights were NOT violated.

Not getting a Miranda WARNING is not the same as denying him his rights.Saying it is a violation of his rights is the line from the terrorist apologists.

From wiki: if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial.

So no farking rights were violated. Stop being a terrorist apologist.

Pfft

Sure it is denying him his rights if he asked for a lawyer and was not given one. Is that too complex for you to understand?

chewielouie:Tatsuma: The Guardian and Glenn Greenwald. Urgh that's like the apotheosis of far-Left douchebaggery.

If you ask questions to someone before giving them their miranda rights and without having them charged, they do not need to be provided a lawyer. Nothing they said will be used in court, so they don't need a lawyer in the first place.

No. If you open your mouth and say something before you are charged, it CAN be used against you in court.

Anytime you volunteer information, then it can be used in court.

In your statement, when is one "charged"? Is that when the police say "you are under arrest"?

401kman:tenpoundsofcheese: 401kman: There was no public safety afforded by denying him his rights.

That is because his rights were NOT violated.

Not getting a Miranda WARNING is not the same as denying him his rights.Saying it is a violation of his rights is the line from the terrorist apologists.

From wiki: if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial.

So no farking rights were violated. Stop being a terrorist apologist.

Pfft

Sure it is denying him his rights if he asked for a lawyer and was not given one. Is that too complex for you to understand?

The Muthaship:401kman: You watch way too many movies. They alreay had all of the explosives in possession and the FBI damn well knew there were no other plots. Jack Bauer is fiction you idiot

Aren't you just a sweetie pie.

So, there's no chance they had other associates who had their own explosives and plans? I read a report that said they found a woman's DNA on one of the bombs. It's entirely possible that there are more than just these 2 guys behind this.

What a week later? Sorry for calling you an idiot, but I just hate the idea that people think that there is any excuse for ignoring our rights.

401kman:tenpoundsofcheese: 401kman: There was no public safety afforded by denying him his rights.

That is because his rights were NOT violated.

Not getting a Miranda WARNING is not the same as denying him his rights.Saying it is a violation of his rights is the line from the terrorist apologists.

From wiki: if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial.

So no farking rights were violated. Stop being a terrorist apologist.

Pfft

Sure it is denying him his rights if he asked for a lawyer and was not given one. Is that too complex for you to understand?

Wrong.When questioned by police you don't have a Constitutional right to be given a lawyer.Let me guess, you think he has a right to a phone call too, right?

Now, in an actual trial, that is a different story.

Go read the Constitution instead of watching cop shows on TV, you may learn something.

You become a citizen. you take MY money in the form of welfare. you bomb a marathon, shoot it out with thecops, You, arsehole, forfeit your citizenship, and your rights as a citizen. do NOT pass go, do NOT collect 200dollars, and NO window seat on your bus ride to hell. I think the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishmentas well as public humiliation needs an exception for arseholes like this. C'mon over- bring yo mama along.

401kman:What a week later? Sorry for calling you an idiot, but I just hate the idea that people think that there is any excuse for ignoring our rights.

I don't think it was a week, and they had Boston locked down the whole time so that could have thwarted some contemporaneous planned attacks. And I'm not for ignoring our rights. I think the massive expansion of the exceptions to Miranda warning under the current DOJ are terrible. But, where the risk of great harm to the public is imminent, and the only known source of info about it is at risk of expiring, I don't have a problem with them questioning him. I also don't have a problem with them being precluded from using those statement against him.

Now, now. There must be a transcript of the earliest interrogations of Tsarnaev out there somewhere. Can't we all wait until we see this transcript to determine whether Tsarnaev asked for a lawyer and was refused, and if so, whether the refusal was legit, given whatever exigent circumstances may have existed at the time, under the public safety exception to Miranda? I'd certainly like to see such a transcript released at the earliest practicable moment.

Until then, all we're doing is conjecturing. Of course, that's how Glenn Greenwald makes his living.

tenpoundsofcheese:401kman: tenpoundsofcheese: 401kman: There was no public safety afforded by denying him his rights.

That is because his rights were NOT violated.

Not getting a Miranda WARNING is not the same as denying him his rights.Saying it is a violation of his rights is the line from the terrorist apologists.

From wiki: if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial.

So no farking rights were violated. Stop being a terrorist apologist.

Pfft

Sure it is denying him his rights if he asked for a lawyer and was not given one. Is that too complex for you to understand?

Wrong.When questioned by police you don't have a Constitutional right to be given a lawyer.Let me guess, you think he has a right to a phone call too, right?

Now, in an actual trial, that is a different story.

Go read the Constitution instead of watching cop shows on TV, you may learn something.

I not going to say anything about what you just wrote but it doesn't make any sense to me and I don't care to understand what you mean by it.

401kman:tenpoundsofcheese: 401kman: tenpoundsofcheese: 401kman: There was no public safety afforded by denying him his rights.

That is because his rights were NOT violated.

Not getting a Miranda WARNING is not the same as denying him his rights.Saying it is a violation of his rights is the line from the terrorist apologists.

From wiki: if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial.

So no farking rights were violated. Stop being a terrorist apologist.

Pfft

Sure it is denying him his rights if he asked for a lawyer and was not given one. Is that too complex for you to understand?

Wrong.When questioned by police you don't have a Constitutional right to be given a lawyer.Let me guess, you think he has a right to a phone call too, right?

Now, in an actual trial, that is a different story.

Go read the Constitution instead of watching cop shows on TV, you may learn something.

I not going to say anything about what you just wrote but it doesn't make any sense to me and I don't care to understand what you mean by it.

FROM WIKIPEDIA:

if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial

401kman:The Muthaship: 401kman: You watch way too many movies. They alreay had all of the explosives in possession and the FBI damn well knew there were no other plots. Jack Bauer is fiction you idiot

Aren't you just a sweetie pie.

So, there's no chance they had other associates who had their own explosives and plans? I read a report that said they found a woman's DNA on one of the bombs. It's entirely possible that there are more than just these 2 guys behind this.

What a week later? Sorry for calling you an idiot, but I just hate the idea that people think that there is any excuse for ignoring our rights.

You still have not specified what actual (vs. TV show) rights were ignored.

The Muthaship:401kman: What a week later? Sorry for calling you an idiot, but I just hate the idea that people think that there is any excuse for ignoring our rights.

I don't think it was a week, and they had Boston locked down the whole time so that could have thwarted some contemporaneous planned attacks. And I'm not for ignoring our rights. I think the massive expansion of the exceptions to Miranda warning under the current DOJ are terrible.

But, where the risk of great harm to the public is imminent, and the only known source of info about it is at risk of expiring, I don't have a problem with them questioning him. I also don't have a problem with them being precluded from using those statement against him.

From everything I have heard about these attacks, the 9/11 attacks, and others. I just don't buy that there is a real scenario here where that kind of questioning will really work. Nothing I have read or heard by credible sources indicates that these kind of exemptions and usage of "enhanced" methods shows that they work.

To the contrary, I am inclined to believe that this is just fiction used by those who would inclined to infringe upon our rights.